JUDGMENT 1. This present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended till date, challenging the award dated 31.08.2021 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Court No.5, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.T.S.(MAC) 114 of 2018 whereby the appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. has been directed to pay an awarded amount of Rs.31,35,000/-(Rupees thirty-one lakhs five thousand) with 8% interest from 27.07.2018 till date. 2 The facts of the case in brief, which may be relevant for the present purpose and manifest on the record are that on 12.06.2017, one Umesh Sarkar (deceased herein) was proceeding towards Agartala from Paharmura, Khowai by riding his motorbike No. TR-01-X-9692 with moderate speed on the left side of the road. When he reached Mohanbari near TSR, Camp at about 3.30 pm, the offending Motor Bus bearing No TR-04-1244 came from Agartala side with heavy high speed on the wrong side of the road and dashed him. As a result, he sustained serious injuries. He was immediately shifted to AGMC and GBP hospital, Agartala but in spite of the best treatment, he died in the hospital. Thereafter, the claimant respondents herein as claimant-petitioners filed a suit bearing No.T.S.(MAC) 114 of 2018 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation of Rs.58,70,000/-. 3 O.P. No. 1, Sri Bimal Shil, the owner of the offending Motor Bus contested the case of claimants by filing a written statement and pleaded that on the date of the accident i.e. on 12.06.2017, the offending Motor Bus was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited vide Policy No. 552700166360127572 covering the period from 01.01.2017 to 31.12.2017 and as a result, the liability, if any, is to be borne by the National Insurance Company Limited, Agartala Division, 42 Akhowa Road, Agartala-799001, West Tripura. He further pleaded that the claim case is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. Thus, OP No. 1 prayed for the dismissal of the claim of the claimants. 4 O.P. No. 2, the National Insurance Company Limited was added in that case by way of amendment. He further pleaded that the claim case is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. Thus, OP No. 1 prayed for the dismissal of the claim of the claimants. 4 O.P. No. 2, the National Insurance Company Limited was added in that case by way of amendment. O.P. No. 2, the National Insurance Company Limited contested the case by filing a written statement denying the plea of the claimants and putting the claimants' strict proof thereof and, inter alia, pleaded that the offending Motor Bus did not cause any accident. O.P.No.2, the National Insurance Company further pleaded that the Motor Bus involved was not driven by a driver having a valid driving license, and therefore O.P. No. 2 is not liable to pay the compensation. Thus, OP No. 2 prayed for the dismissal of the case of the claimants. 5 Based on the pleadings and documents, following issues were framed:- (i) Is the claim petition maintainable in its present form and nature? (ii) If the death of Umesh Sarkar caused due to road traffic accident occurred on 12.07.2017 at about 3.30 pm at near TSR Camp, Mohanbari on Khowai- Agartala Road due to rash and negligent driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TR-04-1244? If so, is the claimant petitioner entitled to get compensation as prayed for? (iii) Who shall be liable for payment of compensation to the claimant petitioner? 6 To prove the case the claimant-petitioners examined 2 witnesses namely PW-1 Smt. Shipra Sarkar and PW-2 Sri Sahadeb Sarkar and proved some documents. O.P. No.1, Sri Bimal Shil, owner of the offending Motor Bus No.TR.04.1244 examined himself as OPW-1 and also proved some documents. 7 Thereafter the Ld. Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 5 West Tripura Agartala, after appreciation of evidence, decided all the 3 issues in favour of the claimants and passed the Award dated 31.08.2021 in case no. TS.(MAC) 114 of 2018 whereby the Appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd has been directed to pay an awarded amount as stated above. 8 Being aggrieved by dissatisfied with the award passed above, the O.P No. 2 National Insurance Co. Ltd herein as appellant preferred this instant appeal and prayed for the following reliefs:- 'a) Admit the appeal. b) Call for the records of case no. T.S.(MAC) 114 of 2018 from the Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 5 West Tripura, Agartala. 8 Being aggrieved by dissatisfied with the award passed above, the O.P No. 2 National Insurance Co. Ltd herein as appellant preferred this instant appeal and prayed for the following reliefs:- 'a) Admit the appeal. b) Call for the records of case no. T.S.(MAC) 114 of 2018 from the Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 5 West Tripura, Agartala. c) Stay the operation of the impugned award dated 31.08.2021 passed in T.S.(MAC) 114 of 2018. d) After hearing the parties be kind enough to set aside/quash the impugned award appealed against. AND Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.' 9 This instant appeal has come up before the Court on 31.01.2022 and the Court has passed an order of admitting the instant appeal subject to a deposit of 30% of the awarded amount by the appellant with the Registry of this Court within a period of 4 weeks from 31.01.2022. In pursuance of the same, Rs.9,40,500/-(Rupees nine lakh fourty thousand and five hundred) has been deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company. 10 Now, when today, the matter is listed for hearing, Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. J. Das, learned counsel appears for the appellant-Insurance Company as well as Mr. P.S. Roy, learned counsel appears for respondents No.1 & 2 and Mr. K.C. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel along with Mr. D.C. Saha, learned counsel appears for respondents No.4. 11 Heard both parties. 12 Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company has formulated the following points in support of his case:- i) The order passed by the Trial Court in considering 1/3rd deduction towards the personal expenses since the deceased being a bachelor is contrary to the Judgment of the Sarala Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and it should be 50% towards personal expenses for a bachelor /unmarried person. ii) In view of both the vehicles, i.e., the Motor Bus (TR-04-1244) and the Motor Bike (TR-01-X-9692) being involved in a head-on collision, and the Motor Bus being insured by the National Insurance Company Ltd. and the Motor Bike being insured by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, it is the case of 'contributory negligence' and the National Insurance Company, the appellant herein is not liable to pay the amount as awarded. iii) Learned Sr. iii) Learned Sr. counsel further advanced his argument that if fundamental breach of terms of the Insurance Policy is made by the parties, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the amount. ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED POINTS 13 Since the point of the deceased being a bachelor is not disputed, and further learned counsel appearing for the claimants has not placed before this Court any judgment to deviate from Sarala Verma (supra), this Court has no hesitation to say that the order of the Trial Court in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses is contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Sarala Verma (supra). Accordingly, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses. 14 Mr. Kar Bhowmik, Learned Sr. counsel has further advanced his argument on the point of 'contributory negligence', before this Court, but, no issue has been framed and no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company to strengthen the argument of the Insurance Company. In the instant case, the investigating officer opined that the violation is on the part of the Motor Bus Driver and held him accountable for the accident. 15 In view of the above, the argument of the 'contributory negligence' does not stand and, accordingly, it is negated. 16 On the point of fundament violation of the Insurance Policy and its terms and condition, the learned Sr. counsel has not placed before this Court any evidence as well as there was no evidence before the learned Tribunal to deal with this argument. Since the onus is on the part of the Insurance Company to defend its case and since the Insurance Company has failed to prove its case, this Court has no hesitation to reject this contention. CONCLUSION 17 In view of the observation made above with regard to the deduction of 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased and in light of the observations made in Sarala Verma (supra), this Court modifies the order of the learned Tribunal in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses to deducting 50% towards the personal expenses. The other part of the order of the tribunal stands confirmed. 18 The parties are at liberty to file an appropriate application before the learned Tribunal giving the calculation statement in the light of the order passed by this Court by reducing 1/3rd towards personal expenses to 50% towards personal expenses. The other part of the order of the tribunal stands confirmed. 18 The parties are at liberty to file an appropriate application before the learned Tribunal giving the calculation statement in the light of the order passed by this Court by reducing 1/3rd towards personal expenses to 50% towards personal expenses. Further, the parties are at liberty to withdraw the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only which has been deposited at the time of filing this appeal. Accordingly, the Registry shall redeposit the same to the respective account. 19 With the above observation and modification of the order of the learned Tribunal as indicated above, the present appeal is allowed in part and thus disposed of and as a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stands closed.